On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 15:48, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
> Since the last time this came up, PSR-12 has been replaced with PER-CS,
> which as of 2.0 now says:
>
> > If a function or method contains no statements or comments (such as an
> empty no-op implementation or when using constructor property promotion),
> then the body SHOULD be abbreviated as {} and placed on the same line as
> the previous symbol, separated by a space.
>
> cf: https://www.php-fig.org/per/coding-style/#44-methods-and-functions
>
> (I... suppose technically it doesn't mention classes, but I've been doing
> it for empty classes too.)
>
> So the "coding style" part of the previous issue has been resolved.
> Whether that changes anyone's mind about whether this should be done or not
> is up to them to decide.
>
> Personally, I'd probably vote for it if it came up, but I agree it's a
> pretty minor improvement and unlikely to pass. It would probably only be
> worth doing if there were other common-pattern-optimizations around the
> constructor that came with it. Things like auto-forwarding to the parent,
> or a more compact syntax than a full constructor method, or other things
> that make writing a "pure data" product type easier rather than just s/{}/;/
>
> I don't know what those could look like. As a data point, in Kotlin
> (which is what my day job is now), constructor properties are always
> promoted, essentially.
>
> class Foo(val a: String, val b: String) { // This is the equivalent of
> PHP's promoted properties.
>
> val c: Int = 5 // A non-constructor-initialized property. These can have
> hooks, constructor ones I think cannot.
>
> init {
> // This is the non-promoted part of a constructor body, and runs after
> the properties are assigned.
> }
> }
>
> In case of inheritance, there's dedicated required syntax for forwarding
> to the parent:
>
>
> class Foo(val a: String, val b: String) : Bar(b) { // equivalent to
> parent::__construct($b)
>
> }
>
> You can also make the constructor private (etc.) with more explicitness:
>
> class Foo private constructor(val a: String, val b: String) {}
>
> Of note, if there's no constructor then the parens are omitted, and if
> there's no body then the {} body is omitted. That means a great many
> "value objects"/DTOs, etc just look like this:
>
> class Foo(
> val a: String,
> val b: String,
> )
>
> Which would be equivalent to PHP's
>
> class Foo {
> public function __construct(
> public readonly string $a,
> public readonly string $b.
> ) {}
> }
>
> cf: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/classes.html
>
> To be clear, I'm not suggesting PHP just copy Kotlin directly. I'm saying
> that if we want to improve the constructor syntax for common cases, which I
> am open to, we should be looking to do something more substantial and
> ergonomic than just replacing {} with ;, and we could probably get some
> good inspiration from other languages in our family. (Java, Kotlin, C#,
> Swift, etc.)
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
Sorry about the top posting and thank you for your feedback. I'll take that
into account.
I have used Kotlin myself for many years and love how concise the syntax is
there. I'll take a look at other languages and see if I can come up with a
more concise syntax that still feels like PHP.
Else I might try out creating this small RFC first as a good introduction
to the flow, even though it is unlikely to pass.
Best regards
Oliver Nybroe (he/him)
